| First published in STATNews, January 1989. |
Robert Rickover’s “guide to the Alexander Technique” fulfills its presumed purpose of skimming the surface of a difficult subject. Prospective readers will be many, and for some - especially those who would not look twice at Alexander’s own writings - this essentially journalistic work will strike a chord.
Much of the book is spent emphasising the usefulsness of the Technique in making people’s lives more practically satisfying. Typical pupils are seen to be neither searching for themselves nor the miraculous so much as hoping to alleviate specific symptoms. This is not dismilar to Alexander’s own early motivation; but as he later showed, and as the “blurb” to this book confirms, the Technique he discovered can be “one of the most sophisticated and powerful methods of personal transformation available.”
Since Robert Rickover devotes only limited space to any overtly philosophical consideration of the Technique, he presumably believes present day interest lies elsewhere, and that the “eighties” public will be best served by the revision of a complex subject in a way that makes it appear readily comprehensible. How useful his contribution to this proves to be may ultimately depend on how the members of the wider Alexander community view his decision not to talk of the “primary control”, or mention “inhibition”, or touch on associated “traditional” concepts central to the Technique, while still purpoting to provide overall guidance to its methodology and meaning.
Past experience may have shown that the uncompromising nature of Alexander’s work engenders a sense of mystery as to its pupose which can be off-putting. Over-simplification while trying to spread the word is one way of avoding this. But can a book on the Alexander Technique be regarded as serious if it fails to mention its basic ramifications, an individual understanding of which, many adherents believe, determines and conditions the re-educational process?
Fitness without Stress may dissuade some readers from investigating the Technique further, while deceiving others as to its facility in practice, but Robert Rickover can claim to have adopted a moderate approach overall. In order for Alexander’s work to be accepted in the “mainstream”, it probably has to suffer some diminution, and it is in this light that his book should be welcomed.
© Nicholas Brockbank. Reproduced with permission.
|
This edition © Mouritz 2005. All rights reserved. |
